Agam 05 Ang 05 Study Of Bhagvati Vyakhya Prajnapti Sutra

Author(s): Suzuko Ohira
Publisher: Prakrit Text Society Ahmedabad

Page 41

56
In relation to the topic of ahimsa, we would like to touch upon the controversial issue of monks' acceptance of meat in those days. The Acara 1.1.9.51 instructs a monk not to beg for such food as meat and fish which are prepared for the sake of guests or sick persons. This pertains to the prohibition from accepting prepared food, and a similar idea is likewise expressed in the Sutrakrta 1.6.37-39. Also Buddha is said to have established a rule that no monk should eat meat specially killed for them, because Jaina monks cried out on witnessing a scene where Buddhist monks were eating an ox killed for the sake of their dinner. On the other hand, the Acara 1.1.10.58 enjoins a rule that a monk should reject meat and fish with many bones, but it permits him to ask for meat and fish without bones; in case he has received flesh with bones, he can eat flesh by separating it from the bones. Likewise the Da'savaikalika V.1.73 prohibits a monk from accepting any eatables with many bones (bahu-atthiyam puggalam. The meaning of non-acceptance of bones is selfevident, for it incurs himsā on oneself.
In the Sutrakrta 11.2.38, monks are instructed not to drink liquor or eat meat. Curiously enough, there is hardly any other direct reference forbidding monks receiving fresh in the earlier canonical texts. And the Uttara V.9 condemns meat-eating and liquor-drinking as the actions of a fool (i.e., layman), and a layman committing such actions is warned that he shall take rebirth in naraka
in VI.6-7 (and in X IX.69-70 which must belong to later times). It is thus evident that there was a general rule for the ascetics binding them not to take meat and liquor. It then ensues that the above passage of the Acara II.1.10. 58 can be a special rule. However, it openly allows a monk to accept flesh without bones. And we should keep in mind that both the Sutrakrta I and Acara II were written at the time when the Chedasutras were enumerating numerous prohibitory rules incurring heavy punishments such as months of parihara or the expulsion of monks from the church for seemingly minor errors. And no type of punishment to monks is locatable in these old Chedasutras for receiving meat from the laity.
58
Certainly, the Nisitha X.581 charges heavy four-month parihara to a monk for receiving food from kings and warriors who are enjoying animal meat hunted by themselves. But this touches upon the prohibitory rule of the approval of himsa directly committed by donors. In general, laymen are not the immediate slaughterers of animals in obtaining their meat, thus the same problem would not arise for monks by accepting meat from them. It thus seems that a rule of not receiving flesh from laymen was in reality not rigidly binding to monks, because most Indians at that time were probably accustomed to the consumption of meat, and the lay Jainas were no exceptions. And unless all the Jaina laymen observed strict vegetarianism, Jaina monks had no choice but to accept meat in many circumstances, which is exactly what is found under discussion in the Acara Il passage. It seems that Pujyapada is the first author who